San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation Friday that would mandate police foot patrols for eight of the city's 10 district police stations, saying the ordinance unnecessarily duplicates plans already under way and hamstrings the ability of police brass to deploy officers when and where they are most needed.

"For more than two years, we have worked hard to increase foot patrols in our city," Newsom said in a written statement. "We are pleased that our work toward this goal is being realized, and we're confident that the city will be safer thanks to these efforts."

Newsom's action drew withering criticism from the legislation's author, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who accused the mayor of not having done enough to address rising violent crime and now is attempting to hoodwink the public 11th-hour plans of his own for stepped-up foot patrols.

"The mayor is literally putting his vanity and politics before public safety," Mirkarimi said. "What's shameful is that under Mayor Newsom crime of all levels has spiraled out of control. And now he has the audacity to speak out of both sides of his mouth."

Mirkarimi introduced the foot-patrols legislation as a response to rising gun and gang violence citywide -- which Newsom also has tried to address through stepped-up spending on youth services and job training, installation of security cameras in high-crime neighborhoods and more money for police overtime.

The foot-patrols legislation passed the Board of Supervisors on a 7-3 vote, with Supervisor Jake McGoldrick absent. To sustain his veto, the mayor needs to pick up a fourth vote on the 11 member board and probably has his sights set on McGoldrick, who had voted in favor of the ordinance when it came up for its first vote but also voiced concern it might draw officers out of the Richmond District, which he represents.

Earlier Friday, McGoldrick joined Newsom and Police Chief Heather Fong during an appearance on Clement Street in the Richmond, which was billed by the mayor's office as an opportunity for Newsom to talk about his administration's commitment to safer neighborhoods.

Related Stories

During the appearance, McGoldrick said he had no idea that Newsom would veto the legislation until the mayor raised the possibility at the event in conversation with news reporters -- and the supervisor then opened the door to possibly switching sides on the issue.

In order to support Newsom, he said, he would need to see more specific details from the mayor about how he would propose to get more foot patrol officers onto the street.

"I'm willing to talk about it, but I want to see real alternatives to what we have now," McGoldrick said. "The mayor has to say there will be more foot patrols, and he needs to work with the chief to do that."

If McGoldrick were to join Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Sean Elsbernd and Aaron Peskin, each of whom voted against the ordinance, that would be enough to sustain Newsom's veto.

The ordinance would require about 33 officers to walk a full shift each day in areas patrolled by the city's Northern, Southern, Taraval, Park, Tenderloin, Mission, Bayview and Ingleside police stations. Mirkarimi pushed the legislation as a popular response to violent crime and what he said has been a lack of initiative from the mayor, the Police Department and city Police Commission.

The legislation is opposed by Chief Fong and the union representing police officers. But, as it moved through City Hall hearings, Mirkarimi agreed to amend the measure to not take affect until January, which he said was done to accommodate Fong, who said the delay would make it easier to comply, as more officers are hired and others are freed up to walk beats as more civilians are put to work handling paperwork and desk jobs.

On Friday, however, Fong repeated objections, saying the legislation's mandates of the frequency, duration and location of the foot patrols would handicap district captains' ability to respond to emergencies and changes in crime patterns.

"We have department heads who should be allowed to make decisions for their departments," said Fong, as she walked with Newsom greeting shop owners and residents along Clement Street. "I don't think legislation should dictate what department heads do."

Mirkarimi has argued that the ordinance would provide police captains plenty of latitude in staffing and assignment decisions.

Also Friday, Fong said new funds allocated under this year's budget mean that 18 officers would be shifted to foot patrols within two weeks, regardless of whether the legislation becomes law.

And, in announcing the veto, the statement released by the mayor's office noted that 310 officers already spend some part of each week walking beats.

The implication of both points is that Mirkarimi's legislation is now a solution in search of a problem.

"Don't believe the headlines that you will read tomorrow suggesting that we're against beat patrol legislation," Newsom said in his statement. "We're doing beat patrols. We're doing it faster, smarter and relying on public safety experts to make decisions, not politicians."

Mirkarimi said Fong's assertions that more officers would be on the beat within a matter of weeks contradicts what the department has been saying for months about its staffing levels.

"Everything the chief has been saying has been rendered false," the supervisor said.

The veto Friday was Newsom's seventh since taking office. He said didn't know whether he had the votes to stop an override, which he suggested would be attempted as a way to make him look bad heading into a reelection year.

"It's political. ... I can veto it and the supervisors can say that the mayor's been absent on policing and that will grab headlines ... but I don't think it's good public policy for the supervisors to control what the police chief does," Newsom said.

Asked about the possibility of overriding the veto, Mirkarimi said, "We'll see what happens. We're simply trying to do the people's business, and we'll continue to try to do their business without politics. But the mayor makes it difficult."